‘Pressure campaign’ could help secure Trump conviction
It’s a bit early in People v. Donald Trump to either pronounce the case dead on arrival or, in contrast, dub it a total nightmare for Trump. But there’s an aspect of the prosecution that might be underappreciated as we examine the case: what Bragg called the “pressure campaign” against Michael Cohen.
The allegation comes in Bragg’s statement of facts, a separate document from the indictment that explains the prosecution’s case in more detail. In the statement, Bragg noted that, after the FBI searched Cohen’s home and office in 2018, Trump and others “engaged in a public and private pressure campaign to ensure that [Cohen] did not cooperate with law enforcement in the federal investigation.” (Cohen wound up pleading guilty federally to multiple crimes, including related to the hush money scheme; Trump was never charged federally, even though Cohen implicated Trump in the scheme.)
The reason this alleged pressure campaign is important is that it can be powerful evidence before a jury, if this case goes to trial and this evidence is admitted. To the extent that Bragg’s theory of the case is that Trump falsified business records in order to engage in a wide-ranging cover-up, this pressure campaign evidence could add fuel to that theory.
McCarthy says Bragg 'will be held accountable by Congress'
When recently asked about a potential Trump indictment, House Speaker Kevin McCarthy’s thoughts turned to Hillary Clinton and “equal justice.”
Today, after Trump was arraigned in wake of an actual indictment, the California Republican took to Twitter to suggest that his House “weaponization” subcommittee would be taking a look at the case, declaring that Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg’s “weaponization of the federal justice process will be held accountable by Congress.”
There’s zero evidence the Trump indictment amounts to the “weaponization” of the Manhattan DA’s office. It’s another case of Trump allies seeking to investigate investigators who dare to hold the MAGA leader accountable.
Trump indictment highlights star witness (beyond Michael Cohen)
Many people closely following the Trump hush money investigation in New York are well aware of Michael Cohen reportedly meeting more than a dozen times with Manhattan prosecutors. But the newly unsealed indictment suggests there's another key witness in the mix.
As Steve Benen wrote for Maddowblog earlier today:
I also read the materials with a point NBC News’ Laura Jarrett emphasized last week: “Cohen is a key witness, but prosecutors can’t hinge their entire case on his testimony. In New York, no one can be convicted on the basis of testimony from an accomplice to a crime without corroborating evidence. What’s the corroborating evidence in this case?”
With this in mind, the materials from Bragg’s office today repeatedly referenced the role of David Pecker, former publisher of the National Enquirer, and his direct and extensive efforts in Trump’s alleged schemes. NYU Law’s Ryan Goodman noted this afternoon that Pecker “is going to be a star witness.”
Read Steve's full summary below.
Election laws could help Bragg prove felony violations
Heading into today’s arraignment, part of the speculation was over whether Trump would be charged with misdemeanor or felony counts of falsifying business records. The felony charge, unlike the misdemeanor, requires that the defendant falsify records with intent to commit or conceal another crime. And while the indictment charges felony counts of falsifying business records, it doesn’t detail what those other crimes might be.
However, at Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s news conference just now, he referred to state and federal election laws, suggesting that those could form the prosecution’s theory for what other crimes Trump allegedly intended to commit or conceal.
Alvin Bragg lays out his 'bread and butter' case against Trump
At a press conference shortly after Trump’s arraignment, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg offered a concise summary of why Trump was charged with falsifying business records.
“Under New York State law, it is a felony to falsify business records with intent to defraud, and intent to conceal another crime," he said. "That is exactly what this case is about: 34 false statements made to cover up other crimes.”
“These are felony crimes in New York state, no matter who you are — we cannot and will not normalize serious criminal conduct,” he continued.
Bragg laid out the allegations that Trump made false claims in business records about payments to his then-lawyer Michael Cohen. Those false claims were allegedly intended to cover up how he compensated Cohen for hush money payments to multiple individuals in order to hide damaging information from the voting public in violation of New York’s election law.
Bragg emphasized that while it might be unusual to charge a former president, the charges themselves were routine for his office, given that New York is the country’s financial capital. He described how his office charges people routinely for falsifying business records in relation to violations of bank secrecy laws and tax laws, calling it the “bread and butter” of their white collar work.
“We today uphold our solemn responsibility to ensure that everyone stands equal before the law,” he said as he closed his remarks. “No amount of money and no amount of power changes that enduring American principle.”
Court document explains Trump embarked upon a scheme
As MSNBC legal analyst Joyce Vance told MSNBC moments ago:
This was about the campaign — that Donald Trump was faltering as the election drew close because of the “Access Hollywood” tape. As the statement of fact explains, he embarked upon a scheme. It’s conspiracy language, although we don’t see a conspiracy count in the indictment itself, saying that he embarked upon this scheme that was designed to keep more of these stories from coming to light.
And we know the context, no matter what his lawyers try to argue to the court of public opinion. This was all about controlling damage in a campaign environment. In other words, this indictment really is Trump’s origin story as a candidate trying to manipulate elections, trying to keep damaging information from coming to light.
One place Trump allegedly discussed his scheme: the Oval Office
Manhattan DA Bragg holds press conference, warns against normalizing 'criminal conduct'
Trump won’t be gagged. That may or may not work out for him.
Judge Juan Merchan declined to issue a gag order against Trump related to this case, according to NBC News. That means that he’ll be able to keep posting through it, even if it might not be in his best interests to do so.
Merchan did caution Trump though: “Please refrain from making statements that would incite violence or civil unrest.” Sound advice. Not that it’s stopped Trump in the past.
Today's reminders of Trump's powerlessness
I appreciated Ari Melber and others who’ve noted that today’s booking hearing, at 57 minutes, was very lengthy compared with normal hearings.
As an observer, these moments of waiting have felt, dare I say, affirming. Powerful, at least. As in, Trump is being subjected to the force of the criminal justice system in ways that are clearly uncomfortable for him.
As a former president, Trump undoubtedly received privileges throughout this arraignment that aren’t afforded to other people normally prosecuted by the Manhattan DA. Relative to other alleged criminals, he’s only experiencing a modicum of the pressure the criminal justice system can bring to bear on its targets. But we’re getting these occasional reminders — be it the lengthiness of the proceedings or images of Trump in court — that he’s truly entangled in this process.
It reminds me of a song by rap group The Pharcyde: “Runnin’.”
The chorus says you “can’t keep runnin’ awayyyyyyy.”
And the first lines of the song are:
I also read the materials with a point NBC News’ Laura Jarrett emphasized last week: “Cohen is a key witness, but prosecutors can’t hinge their entire case on his testimony. In New York, no one can be convicted on the basis of testimony from an accomplice to a crime without corroborating evidence. What’s the corroborating evidence in this case?”
With this in mind, the materials from Bragg’s office today repeatedly referenced the role of David Pecker, former publisher of the National Enquirer, and his direct and extensive efforts in Trump’s alleged schemes. NYU Law’s Ryan Goodman noted this afternoon that Pecker “is going to be a star witness.”
Maybe it’s on Trump’s post-arraignment playlist.